DTS.

We won the war militarily. We wiped the Iraqi military out. Did you miss that? We invaded and removed Iraq as a country we thought was a nuclear and biological threat to us directly.

Now as far as stabilizing the country after wiping out the regime that held so many factions from killing each other with brutal authority, well, that has clearly not gone well.

Our first objective was met with success. We removed what we thought was a threat. (No WMD's but we did not know that. We had people scouring all sites detected as biological and nuclear threats) Clearly should have spent some time thinking about stabilizing the country. After we got rid of the regime and finding no WMD's, then we had an entirely different objective that was not well thought out at all.
Then it was, ok then... well we did get rid of a brutal dictator (excuse for not finding WMD's)... uhhh, lets get this country fixed, uhhhh...

What is incorrect about my analysis and opinion.

Pgardn,
Considering that there were UN inspectors looking for wmd's prior to the invasion, perhaps it would have been more prudent to allow them to continue.
I agree that this country needs to "get fixed".
DTS

Well, of course he was wrong to use the word "never" because it's not true! But it's what he said. He said something that wasn't true, that is an absolute fallacy about women's health, on air.

It was also on his show that Mark Foley was listed as a Democrat (and then he didn't correct the mistake; he just removed "Democrat" from the little blurb when they reran the show again), he claims he's won awards he hasn't won, for that matter, he claims a blue-collar background that he doesn't have, and selectively edits quotes by people to spin what they've said-- this link includes a section from Franken's show (which, I have to admit, I watched maybe once. Bad liberal!). Regardless of what you think of Franken, it shows a speech made by Sen. Biden, and then shows how O'Reilly cut it together on his show. It's an interesting look (and if anyone has a clear example from a liberal-based show of the host tinkering with speeches like this, please send it to me!). Scroll down; it's number 7:

http://throwawayyourtv.com/2006/09/b...roversies.html

Rupert, if you love Bill O'Reilly, of course you should keep watching him, but don't let him persuade you that what he's doing is news-- it's not; it's political-themed entertainment. And hey, in his defense, I thought the lawsuit he pushed Fox to file against Franken, claiming Fox owned the phrase "Fair and Balanced" made for hilarious news for a few weeks. (Franken claims O'Reilly wanted to sue becaue he was mad about the picture Franken used of him on the cover of the book, which he swears he had intended to get airbrushed until O'Reilly threatened Franken's editor, who is a rather tiny woman. It's actually a pretty funny account in the book, of O'Reilly cornering her and shrieking, 'This is what I look like! This is what I look like!" as he points at his face.)

And watching the clip reminds me of why I never got hooked on Franken's radio show-- he's really boring on radio.

There was this continuing problem of the inspectors not being allowed to do their job. Continually harassed and not let into sites... You have got to remember this. The inspectors knew very little because they were not allowed to do their job. Read the UN reports... You certainly did not forget this? If they would have been allowed into sites none of this might have taken place. If Saddam had cooperated, we would not be in this mess. You have got to see this.

I don't think his show is a news show. It is basically a show where he gives his opinion on whichever current events are of interest to him and then he has guests on to debate him about it. For example, he'll bring up a trial that just ended where some child molester was only sentenced to 6 months in jail, and he'll talk about how outrageous the sentence was. Then he'll have some liberal guest on that will explain why the senetnce was fair and they will debate about it. That's basically what the show is. I probaby watch it once a month. I don't love O'Reilly by any means. I think he's alright. I certainly agree with his positions a lot more often than I disagree with them.

By the way, his show must be pretty good. He gets great guests. He gets congresmmen and Senators from both parties. When the Clinton/Chris Wallace controversy was going on, O'Reilly had James Carville and Paul Begala on the show.

With all of these things whether we are talking about the Drudgereport or the O'Reilly Factor, you really need to check them out for yourself. It's obvious from your description that you know very little about either one. Just because some liberal source told you that these were bad, it doesn't make it true. You really need to decide for yourself rather than basing your opinion on someone else's one-sided argument that bashes the Drudgereport or The O'Reilly Factor.

O'Reilly is an entertainer with a quick mouth. If you really want to listen to some more thoughtful people I would stick with George Will. Heck George Stephanap (greekname) once big demo has actually become much more fair and probing sense becoming more of a mediator. I also like Jim Lehrer. These guys are much more thoughtful and are not in the business to entertain. They give information. Charlie Rose has an agenda but his guests are absolutely incredible (the ones that are not his friends in Hollywood.) He gets some of the most thoughtful liberal and conservative minds, again not terribly exciting people, but very wise. His recent interview with Jim Baker was absolutely fantastic.

Pgardn,
Dubbya gave Saddam an ulimitum...Leave within 48 hours. Remember?
Saddam was already in a box.
The invasion could have waited. There already were sanctions.
The real shame is that so many "bought" into this nonsense.
Like...if you disagreed with Dubbya's policy, you were "unpatriotic".
The words were, "You're either with us or against us."
Look at where that got us.
What ever happened to "free speech"?
Maybe it all got lost on the diversions like "intelligent design", "flag burning",
"gay marriage" and "stem cells".
In my humble view, we need not continue to waste more lives on the insanity that our "beloved" president has created.
Yes, there is a mess. "Stay the course" won't work anymore.
If Dubbya is indeed responsible for the direction that he's taken this country, and other countries also, it is time for answers to be found in the World Court in Hague, wherein he desrves to have a fair hearing on the charges of being the war criminal, that he is.
I can't wait for the trial.
DTS

Good analysis. I agree with everything you said.

--he desrves to have a fair hearing on the charges of being the war criminal, that he is...

welllll. if he's already been found guilty there dts, why not just sentence him?? how can the trial be fair if the verdict is a foregone conclusion??

For sure!
I have a slightly used bridge that I'd like to sell to you.
It connects Manhatten and Brooklyn.
I can give you a "good deal".
If you're not interested in this one, I have an "option" on one that's in San Francisco, it connects to Oakland.
Let me know if you want to put money down on either of them.
I'll give you a very good deal.
If you can afford the buying the "war on terror", wherein we create even more terrorists, to the tune monthy costs, for sure this will be a "money maker" for you.
Let me know if you're interested. This "deal" won't wait.
Do you also want to buy a slightly failed "war"?

I can't wait to see the trial. I'm waiting for that and a Beatles' reunion. I'm not sure which is more likely of happening between a Beatles' reunion and a trial for Bush.

In case anyone doesn't know, a Beatles' reunion is impossible since Lennon and Harrison are no longer alive.

DTS: Hyperbole Hyperbole, you have found your Master! It's nice of you to sit on your perch and spin about the Great Villain Bush, as you haven't walked a mile in his shoes. Yes, it's unfortunate that Bush doesn't run the Administration with a poll(or pole) as his sorry-butt predesessor did,huh? You choose the facts you believe and articulate...surely you are aware that car burnings in France average 112 a day, and that England is in turmoil with Muslims stating "if you call us criminals, we will become criminals" The Popes' statements added fuel to the fire, and that Muslims have set 2015 as date to have full control of Germany. The Gathering Storm is real, and every part that we can neutralize is necessary. We have countries that their 'express purpose' in life is to destroy the US and Israel,and anyone else who dares stand in their way. You're dreaming if you think Bush and Rumsfeld would stand trial in ANY court! I would advocate complete end to funding any and all countries who would support that scheme. BTW..if you're a patriot as you say..then it behooves you to get with those people who monitor everything and GIVE them your solution to Iraq...or is it really aout the money?

I wsa in the car for a couple hours yesterday morning and had "Breakfast with the Beatles" on the radio. They played all of the Ed Sullivan show appearances. It was great. Besides the music, Ed Sullivan was also great, "Let me tell you, they're fine, fine youngsters."

Welll, we dusted the Iraqi army pretty good.
We rooted out Sadaam pretty easily
But,
We chose to dismantle the Iraqi army which probably was a bad idea, since a lot of those guys now get their paychecks from the bad guys,
And,
While "freedom reigns" in Iraq, it really has done so only if you are not part of the Sunni group.
Just today,
The Ba'ath party has been reinstated in the Iraqi legislature.

On second thought, maybe Rumsfield is the only thing actually going right. The political decisions, on the other hand, have not gone well, purple fingers notwithstanding.

(I must work "root out" into my conversational vocabulary.)

er...just be careful what people you say 'root out' to...and whether it is indeed out or not. hate to see you up on charges....

i'll be careful. lol. i will surely never use the expression with you.

oh, really?? darn....

:D

Ultimatum... what? How many times did we go around and around with them about inspections all thru the late 1990's. Its so easy to forget. Ultimatum after how many warnings? For God's sake those inspectors got thrown out of the country time after time. Did you completely forget this. Go back and read about the UN inspections in Iraq and what the inspectors had to deal with. I am more than willing to be accurate. You have got to hold to this also. If you say we should have given it more time even though Iraq constantly balked and lied etc.. chunked the inspectors out, that we STILL could have worked something in the long run, ok. But to completely forget how much trouble the UN had inspecting anything in Iraq is disingenious history, and thats being kind. I have no agenda here. I want accuracy. I want people to go back and put themselves in that moment and ask what was going on AT THAT TIME. You cant just take the easy way out and forget it all.

"With regard to your question about Bush, I do not think that his job approval has been hurt by media coverage. I think the media has been fair with him overall. I think the only thing that has really hurt him is the war. And the war would not have hurt him at all if it would have gone well. Americans are results oriented. If we would have won the war, everyone would be happy. "-Ritchie



There was no way to "win" this war.These people have never known Democracy,yet this fool thought they would be easily indoctrinated into it.There is 1 Islamic Democracy in the whole Middle East.They don't want it.They want law and order enforced by powerful leaders,and most want an Islamic Theocracy. That's where this fool blew it.He keeps repeating that everybody yearns for freedom.They don't.I'd really like to know who advised GEEDUBBYA about the Islamic World,because his understanding of it would fit in a thimble.Democracy will never work there.He can keep us there forever,but it will still not work there.Americans are upset because the guy has no clue how to get out of there.So,there is very little progress there,but hundreds of Americans will simply keep getting killed. A pathetic situation in the opinion of 2/3rds of the people in this country.Dumb cowboy got us in there,but he sure can't get us out.

I don't know about that. I think the vast majority of people in Iraq want democracy. The problem is that if you have 10% of the population that don't want it and they are well armed and want to fight, you have a serious problem. It's not as if the vast majority of people in Iraq are fighting right now. You've got a small percentage of the population fighting. I think there are around 25 million people in Iraq. If you have even 4% of the population(which would be 1 million people) running around shooting everyone, then you have a big problem.

Ultimately you may be right that the people will not tolerate democracy but that's not necessarily because most people don't want it. It's because a violent minority will not tolerate it.

Either way, it was a major miscalculation on the part of the Bush Administartion. They should have known that a violent minority that was willing to fight a guerilla war could wreak havoc.

Pgardn,
You might find this article interesting.http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1022-04.htm
DTS

"I don't know about that. I think the vast majority of people in Iraq want democracy."


You have Geedubbya's disease.If you want to stay there until there's Democracy,then our troops will be there when you die.

DTS they are only printing the parts of the story that sound good. Go look at all the other articles in which Blix complains profusely about the Iraqi's complete lack of cooperations and how they let them into sites they wanted them to see.

Common dreams is cutting a pasting. Thats just not an accurate portrayal of the situation. I followed this very closely because I did not want us to get into war and was hoping beyond hope that the UN would be allowed into all the sites they wanted on their time scale, because they clearly said thing had been moved and hidden by the Iraqis BEFORE they were allowed in. What they were hiding I have no idea now. But this article is reprehensible in what it has left out. Blix and other UN officials were constantly deceived and lied to and nothing in that article says anything about how bad this problem was.

That article is really not fair, not at all.

I agree with you. We can't stay there forever. We've already been there for 4 years. I hope we get out in the next year or two.

Pgardn,
Alas, there are no "do overs". Blix and his team had inspected 500 of 700 suspected sites (if you read the article). Saddam was in a "box" and bluffing.
Blix wanted more time to carry on the inspections. This is fact.
That there were nuclear weapons, yellow cake or centerfuges clearly has proven to not be. Remember who put those "stories" out?
So who was decieved? Who rushed to invade?
Blix's own words point to a truth that can not be denied.http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/25/news/invade.php

DTS: you still only tell the facts as you see them,and Hans wants another 15 mins of fame as an expert! Do you honestly believe that there was no movement of WMD's to Syria and other areas? What was Saddam dancing for 8 months,if not to clear out the evidence. Is Sarin gas deadly enough for you? The book "DISINFORMATION" details the stockpiles that were moved,as well as other info that MSM will not print. Russia supplied info on links between Al Queda and Hussein...nobody talks about that. The entire civilised world considered Saddam a threat not only to peace,but stability in region as well. "blinkers ON" bro! PS Still waiting for comment on previous post to you

ok Timm,
I'll start with your last request.
The way to a peaceful resolution is to arrange negotiations including, but not limited to, the Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, an Iranian representative (as Iraq will become a theocracy later), and a US "moderator". The USA is unable to resolve this "war" without the assistance of other Mideast Governments.
As far as the wmd's...if they were in"fact" moved to Syria (part of the axis of evil), how come they haven't been used?
My understanding is:
1) There were no nuclear weapons.
2) Biological weapons were extended beyond their "shelf life" and no longer effective.
3) Chemical weapons. Though used by Saddam against the Kurds (despicable), might still exist. I really don't know. Is there proof that they remain? If so, where, and why haven't they been used by the "rougue state" they were shipped to for the past five years?

With sanctions in place and ongoing inspections, Saddam was not the threat to the rest of the world that was "sold". Hence, the change of "mission" from finding wmd's to regime change, to providing "democracy"..to refereeing a civil war.

timm,
Here is an article you might find to be of interest.
Please note the date. The author was a UN inspector in Iraq.
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0721-02.htm

ps...sorry that it came from "common dreams"

Don't know what the shelf life of Sarin gas is..and we can discuss it aud infinitum..so OK. Your solution(I'm glad you decided to put out) is correct, but it will be llike "herding cats" with all the baggage those groups bring to the table. Would have been nice for the rest of the world to cooperate, but they don't have the guts to follow through on most things anyway! As to the location of said WMDs....Like Syria's not that stupid....they get the most mileage from making USA look bad! Sorry,Buddy.....I'll stick with Bush. Have a good election nite and May only HALF of your dreams come true!:D

Hey kids,

This is SUPPOSED to be a horseracing website.

Its why I sought refuge here from the previously shut down TT forum.

Then get yee to the correct forum. We talk about many things in this particular forum. Please reread the topics discussed in this section. There are people on this board with a wide variety of interests. If racing is slow, we talk politics. I suggest you go to the other forum.

DTS.
Even Hillary and Bill Clinton defended Bush's decision based on Iraq's unwillingness to be honest and allow the inspectors to do their job. Blitz always got to sites AFTER they had been cleaned out. If you think he is happy about the job he got to do in Iraq I think you will find his opinion at the time that he was inspecting was SEVERE dissappointment. There is just no doubt in my mind on this subject. I was thoroughly convinced there were WMD's because of the trickery and lying. So were a ton of democrats and UN people.

Ok, ok, I stand corrected.

Cave men walk completely upright here, got it!

OUch. That was such a cute, witty comment.
Have a good evening... while I drag my wife across the room by her hair.

Welcome to the Board! Most of us are refugees from somewhere. Pick a topic, and respond in your fashion. Be polite...and 'focus' before you post! You will have a much better time here, as will we.;)

dts, just for my sake...what is it that you find makes you an independant, and not a democrat? just out of curiosity.

i still don't get the big uproar. what's the big deal?

it's just a little crystal meth and gay sex.

that's like a regular saturday night for most of my friends.

Oh boy! Yet another request to define myself! GEESH!!
I'll tell you.
I am registerered as an Independent.
There are views that I agree with (better sit down now) with the Conservative Party, like fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets.
There are views that I agree with that come from the Greens, like signing the Kyoto Agreement and marine mammal protection.
There are views that I also hold that come from the Democrats, like adjusting the minimum wage, health care, and others.
There are even a few views that I agree with the Republicans about, such as trade with Canada, and encouraging small business.
There are views that the Libertarians hold that I also agree with, especially regarding the rights of the individual.
I like to make up my own mind, so I don't buy a "total" platform from any political party.
I hope that answers your question.

Now, since you felt free to ask me...
What party are you registered with, and why?
Do you believe that all citizens should be allowed to make their own choices and party affiliations?
Does a "moral" or "religious" belief that you might hold, be used to coerce others to hold the same, despite Constitutional guarantees against same?

I'll have more questions later, but these are enough for now.
Thanks for asking.

i was asking since i never have seen you disagree with a dem, altho you disagree with much that the republicans do...thanks for answering.
i am registered with no party, as you don't have to register (thankfully) in arkansas. why? i don't agree completely with any one party,and think all have something to offer, altho most seem in my view to have more bad going for them than good.
as for making a choice and a party affiliation....of course everyone should be free to do so, altho i wish there was a viable third party to compete with the either/or that we suffer with now.
i got hammered by somer in the past for saying i hold more with the 'legal' than the 'moral' POV as one persons moral view is not the same as another. i even said i felt compelled to start a party known as the 'constitutionalist' party...coach was kind enough to offer to join. i'm very much an 'everyone needs to mind their own business' type--my views on 'gay' marriage would bring down repents wrath in a new york minute. of course my views on gun rights would invite an immediate response from scuds.

Deb, I agree with you. I wish there were a viable 3rd party that could actually compete...

I voted Republican because I swing more to the conservative side, and I realize that the line between republicans and democrats is getting to be a gray area, but really, what other choices do I have? I want to vote, but it seems that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's frustrating...

Thanks for your answer.
I also don't agree with any one party.
Your view on "gay marriage" might be the same as mine. Government should have no say on the one choses to love, and should not provide tax advantages for such.
I'm also pretty clear on the words in the 2nd Amendment. As a hunter and gun collector, there is no good reason for the government to involve itself in my interests, unless there is proof that criminal activity has taken place with my firearms, which there hasn't.
"Moral" views are for the individual to determine for him/her self. No government has the authority to impose them on its citizens.
It is my belief that it is the citizen's responsiblity to speak against the policies of any government that does so.
Peace.

IF you don't stand for SOME morality...then it will just become chaos